Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Indranil Mukherjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 July, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
8
W.P. 29 (W) of 2017
Sri Indranil Mukherjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anindya Lahiri
Mr. Samrat Dey Paul
...For the petitioner.
Mr. Tarak Karan
....For the State.
Three points are raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The first point
is that, Bidhannagar Police should comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (2016) 9 SCC 473 (Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India and
Anr.).
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the Bidhannagar police has a
website, which requires, the detail of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged against
an accused to be filled up for the purpose of accessing such F.I.R. He submits that, if the
accused has the F.I.R. number, then the accused is in the know of the contents of the F.I.R.
He submits that, the portal maintained by the Bidhannagar Police in this respect is not in
consonance with the directions contained in the Youth Bar Association of India (supra).
He compares the portal of Kolkata Police with that of Bidhannagar Police and submits
that, Kolkata Police has a portal, which is in tune with the directions contained in Youth
2
Bar Association of India (supra). The portal of Kolkata Police requires basic minimum
information for the purpose of knowing the contents of a F.I.R. Bidhannagar Police
should follow such system. If such system is followed, then an accused or in fact any
member of the public can know the contents of the F.I.R. That is the spirit of the
directions contained in Youth Bar Association of India (supra).
The second point canvassed by the petitioner is that, the police were overactive at
the instance of the private respondent. The police had arrested the petitioner on the basis
of a complaint under Section 498A by inserting Section 307 of the IPC. Subsequently, when the charge sheet was filed, Section 307 of the IPC was deleted. Investigating Officer had conducted raid at night in respect of bailable offences. The Investigating Officer had misused his official position. He submits that, the police authorities should initiate disciplinary proceeding against the Investigating Officer concerned. The third point canvassed by the petitioner is that, the complaints lodged by the petitioner against the private respondent have not been investigated into.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, one of the complaints was registered as an F.I.R. and that, a report was submitted with respect thereto before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner being aggrieved with such report has moved an application with regard thereto. The other complaints have not been investigated into till date.
3
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that, the Bidhannagar Police have followed the directions contained in Youth Bar Association of India (supra). Bidhannagar Police have a portal in which any member of the public can log into and obtain details of the F.I.R. He submits that, no interference is called for in the present writ petition.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
Youth Bar Association of India (supra) gives directions upon the police authorities to ensure that, details of F.I.R. are available to the members of the public on the internet.
Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate has a portal which, carries the details of F.I.R. lodged against any person. A member of the public can access such portal. However, when a member of the public is attempting to access such portal of Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate, such member of the public is required to fill up some details with regard thereto, which a member of the public may not know. One of such details required in the portal maintained by the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate is a number of the F.I.R. That is a mandatory field. In absence of the mandatory field being filled up in the portal, the next page of the portal will not open. Consequently, a member of the public, who does not know the number of the F.I.R. against an accused person, will not have access to the F.I.R. That, with respect, is contrary to the directions of Youth Bar Association of India (supra). Youth Bar Association of India (supra) requires that any 4 member of the public would have access to the F.I.R. lodged in any police station in India. The portal maintained by Kolkata Police on the other hand facilitates any member of the public to have access to such information without the F.I.R. number. Such portal also has a provision to identify the person, who is seeking to access such portal. The same in my view, is more scientific and is in the tune with the directions contained in Youth Bar Association of India (supra).
In such circumstances, Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate is requested to change its portal so far as the access to information regarding F.I.R. is concerned so as to make the same in tune with the directions of Youth Bar Association (supra), and in order to allow members of the public, who do not know the F.I.R. number to have access to the F.I.R details.
So far as initiation of disciplinary proceeding is concerned, it is for the authorities to take a decision thereon. As a Writ Court, I should not intervene and direct the authorities to initiate disciplinary proceeding.
The third ground is with regard to the inaction of the police in so far as the complaints lodged by the petitioner are concerned. One of the complaints has since been treated as a F.I.R. and has resulted in a report. The petitioner has taken steps with regard thereto. So far as the other complaints are concerned, the police are directed to complete the enquiry or investigation, as the case may be, within a period of six weeks from date.
W.P. 29 (W) of 2017 is disposed of without any order as to costs. 5 Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 6 7 8 9